how-to block ads
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to amungus
Re: Gimmie A Break
said by amungus  :Why should a network be unbalanced in favor of any one thing or another??? Shouldn't that be left to the user? I'm not claiming networks are free here. I just can't understand why two parties should be limited in their exchange of data. A neutral network would ensure that this is the case, one that isn't, wouldn't. Thanks for voicing a great argument against "net neutrality". Shouldn't a user be able to determine how their data is transported over a network? Doesn't "net neutrality" by definition limit how two parties are allowed to exchange data?
A truely neutral network would allow the network owner to provide access over the network based on any agreement they could reach with end users. Basic service at a basic price, and premium service at a premium price. It amazes me that people are so vehemently against an idea that is practiced in practically every single enterprise in a capitalist system. | |
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| I'm trying to address your question of the nature and limits of freedom so I am not trying to deal with the probable argument that companies should be free to do anything they want with their networks(to which I would only reply that, if true, the US should, as it did with public roads, build a public communications infrastructure that is open to all.
"Doesn't "net neutrality" by definition limit how two parties are allowed to exchange data?"
Yes, in the sense that one can not negotiate special privileges on the network that work to the detriment of others.
"Shouldn't a user be able to determine how their data is transported over a network? "
In general, a user should not be able to make a determination that is detrimental to others' transport over the network.
One of the principles of libertarian thought is that you don't have the right to use your freedom to violate others freedom. When we are talking about people entering a competition to see who will pay to get special privilege on the network, that works to the disadvantage of everyone else. Allowing the wealthiest network users absolute freedom to negotiate contracts that force everyone else into a slower lane is not an overall enhancement of liberty, though it may increase the liberty of the wealthiest negotiators(at a cost to everyone else).
| |
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| said by asdfdfdfdf :
"Doesn't "net neutrality" by definition limit how two parties are allowed to exchange data?"
Yes, in the sense that one can not negotiate special privileges on the network that work to the detriment of others.
"Shouldn't a user be able to determine how their data is transported over a network? "
In general, a user should not be able to make a determination that is detrimental to others' transport over the network.
Of course, you're assuming and implying that offering higher QOS services on the internet will negatively impact others. I don't believe that will be the case. Is FedEx Ground service negatively impacted by their Overnight? Is 1st class snail mail negatively impacted by Priority Mail?
Nope, and nope. It can be done. | |
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| "Of course, you're assuming and implying that offering higher QOS services on the internet will negatively impact others."
Yes, I am.
I think, in turn, you are making an erroneous assumption that QOS is being created simply to build a more efficient network.
Although you could make the technical argument that it is possible to enhance certain services without undermining others, since different services can be more or less sensitive to different network variables, we need to look at the real world intent of this within the context of human nature and the behavior of companies.
The telcos want quality of service as a way of extracting additional revenues as well as a way of protecting their services from competition.
They are going to extract additional revenues, from other companies, by having them compete for advantaged transport. No company is going to pay extra, while others don't, for a more efficient network. They are going to pay expecting to be given a performance edge over their competition that doesn't pay.
We can get into sophistries that granting advantage to one company in return for additional payment doesn't create a disadvantage for competing companies but is this true in any meaningful sense?
Furthermore I think it is very unlikely, given what we know about human nature, that the telcos will not use QOS to subtly undermine the performance of competitors in the broad range of services and content telcos want to provide. Once a QOS environment is fully developed it becomes very easy to do such a thing and it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the intent is to stifle competition. | |
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to RJ44
"Is FedEx Ground service negatively impacted by their Overnight? Is 1st class snail mail negatively impacted by Priority Mail?"
The reason I don't feel this is an apt comparison is
1. These services are provided within the same company. They are not services owned and run by competitors with fedex facilitating transport/acting as a middleman. In the same sense net neutrality doesn't deny telcos the right to sell both a 1Mb service level and a 3Mb/s service level. There would be no net neutrality issue if ATT owned and controlled all of the services over the network, as well as the infrastructure, because they would simply build whatever network was required to meet the demands of all their services. Of course this wouldn't be the internet either, it would be an updated version of the old Ma Bell network.
2. Fedex doesn't own the highway and air transport infrastructure with all it's concomitant incentives to use control of that infrastructure to undermine competitor services.
This is a major difference. If the telcos didn't own the underlying wireline infrastructure, but were simply service competitors we wouldn't be dealing with these issues. In fact ATT would be an advocate of net neutrality if they didn't control the infrastructure but were simply another service competitor. | |
|
